>> no >> both roofs slope and there is a valley there and the only way that you will be able to drain that is to put some kind of a horizontal piece right at the juncture where the valley is and then you have a rain water litter from that gutter down. well, if you want it separate, then you both have to have one, so you make a larger gutter, and you have two rain water litters one that goes to your side, and one that goes to their side. >> where was the water previously? >> it was on the one side. >> so, i mean, do you mind, because it is the same, the water is there, it is not his water or her water, it goes to a valley and it goes to ones scupper or litter and it would

just, as my fellow commissioners said, just by having two, you just have now joint liability. >> rather than just having one and >> in the future if there is a repairing issue then we have to come to an agreement. >> exactly. >> they will have to work with that. >> okay. [ speaking in a foreign lanuage ] >> he would think that too. [ speaking in a foreign lanuage ]

>> i understand sir. >> no good. >> then, two rain water litters. >> okay, so my brother is saying that right now the foundation what they have is the newly built foundation blocks where the water goes towards their property, now so all of the water going to our house. >> i am not sure that i can come to a craft and an agreement for both sides. you know? >> okay. >> go ahead and we will ask the same questions of the other side. >> i window instead of the door. >> i guess that it is okay. i tried to save some money for my client. >> you can frame in the window

in the door. >> i do have a request. that window has to meet the minimum code requirements. >> yes. and what is, you have done enough houses what is the minimum requirement. >> it depends on the type of window. >> what is it? >> probably i would put inform a double hung and it will probably require let's see, maybe somewhere between 2, 8 in roof, and 5, 6 in height. >> they got bigger in height? >> or encased i need three foot by, three buy five. either one below it in the guardrail. they don't want a door. >> fine a window and we could do a window. and will be on the egress side.

>> right. and double litter. >> that is what we want to do. that is what my client. >> you still will have joint custody over the gutter. >> okay. >> in terms of a foundation, i think that the department is already done the inspection and the engineer issues an inspection matter. >> all right. >> okay. >> you want to come back on that issue? >> okay. okay, we have a conclusion is that we will agree and accept that the pipe one pipe and then the border goes to the pipe and the sewage. >> but they are responsible for it. my parents won't. yeah. >> they want the rain water litter to tie into your drain line. >> i think that there is a liability problem right there. i mean, >> it is half your water. >> yeah, well... >> into i interject for just

one second? >> i think that is a fair proposition. i mean, as a realtor of the city and touring a lot of the properties as one of the gentleman mentioned the removal of the interior access, i have been to a lot of properties recently where a single family has become two single families. and so, the second the indication that that there is laundry on both levels, i think that your client should be gracious in this matter. >> first i am not the designer of this project and i did have a question about interior stairs because i actually that is something that i learned this time is for the administrative (inaudible) and the interior stairs are now required for exit of the building. and he showed to me black and white. and so i say, well, fine, i

have the same question as well. i hope that you answer your question. and in terms of the main water litter, that is fine. i guess. >> you will have to go to somebody's side. >> yeah. >> i like to resolve this by, accepting those five points of agreement and modifying the agreement in the following way. let me resummarize all five. my motion is going to be to accept the appeal and condition the permit 1, to accept the revised drawings that are required as enumerated by him,

and to deal with the five issues. one is that the fence will be replaced and repaired similar to the chain link fence that was there previously. two, that the permit of rain water, litter and gutter be installed at the valley coming down between the two buildings and connecting to the permit holder's storm line. three, that the exterior door on the third floor be changed to a fire access code compliant window.

four, that the structural inspection copy has been provided to all parties, the appellant and to the building department. and that the deck is three feet from the property line and that the drawings be appropriately done to reflect these. mr. duffy yes? >> >> without knowing the existing condition on the two properties, the code is pretty clear that each property has to be responsible for its own drainage, so in san francisco that is tough because of the 0 lot lines and i don't know what the existing is and i just wanted the code does say that you have to each probably is

responsible for its own. so there is no details of what was existing and no photographs. and i don't know how it existed but i assume that it did exist at one time. but i don't want to... i just want to if you are going to, outside of the code and we sometimes leave it up to people to figure it out because it is tough, if it is code compliant each is responsible for its own and we don't want it. >> you are not accepting the liability for that. >> okay, thanks. >> thank you. >> i believe that covers it, right? >> i have one question and there was a discussion about the size of the window and i don't know if you wanted to include that in your motion. >> i said that needed to be fair access code compliant minimum required.

>> it can be larger. at least the minimum required. >> i do have one question, the two permits were suspended and the first permit has not related to all of the issues that we are talking about the dorm er and the bathroom on the third floor. >> this action today resolves both appeals. >> okay. >> it was current and then he has the paint, where the pipe is... >> why don't you put it on the overhead. >> overhead please. >> so here, that is where our sharing pipe is going all the way down. so, the pipe actually is in the junction of this property here

that is why it has painted area. that is where the pipe was sitting at before they took them down. >> okay. >> who is... >> the house is my parents and the yellow one is theirs. >> okay. >> >> okay. >> sir, if you want to speak you must come up here. >> all right. then, it is likely that it is going to follow similar to the temporary one that is coming down. >> okay. >> okay. >> commissioner fung, i also wanted clarification, you referred to the revised drawings, do those drawings currently exist and if so, i would like to get some identifying information so i could refer to them in the motion. >> i think that the drawings that were provided to the zoning administrator today, >> are they dated? >> we would actually need a

copy given to us. >> yeah. >> we don't adopt the plans without a copy. >> the planning commission and if i could show on the overhead what it would accomplish in the priary concern is the portion that extends. >> the required yard is the required wall and this would be the minimum, that the city extend at 6 feet and this would be the minimum required to the code to access the stairs here to exit from the deck. >> so. and the plans are. >> are those plans, are you willing to part with those? for the purpose of resolving this? >> certain, i could share that project sponsor is willing to. >> so i will hand those over to mr. pacheco. >> i am sure that they will be happy to send it to you. >> anything else that you need madam director? >> just a vote. >> okay. if you are ready. >> that is my motion. >> if you could call the roll

please. >> these plans are... could you redate these? these are dated 20, 12, and these changes here in red? >> if i could change that. so they will be dated today, then, we have one sheet and revised plans dated 2, 20, 13 to, executed as part of the special conditions permit and thank you and we have all five of the other conditions that the fence be replaced to what existed there before. the chain link fence, correct? >> and just to specify the fence between the appellant and the permit holder. >> yes. >> and that the rain gutter, that comes down to the valley shall drain to the permit holder's property? >> from the valley it will drain trait down the building

and then connect to the permit holder's drain line. >> to the permit holder's drain line. >> okay. >> and then, that the exterior door at the third floor be replaced with a code compliant minimum egress window. >> yes. >> okay. >> and that four, that the foundation inspection report be given to all parties? >> yes. >> i believe it has happened already. >> not the building department. >> okay. >> and lastly, that the deck be set back 3 feet from appellant's property line >> that is correct. >> okay. >> okay. so we have a motion to up hold both permits and all of these conditions attached to both or just to one? >> it is attached to the 6 b.

>> to 6 b, so the permit ending in 2814. >> that is correct. >> good. >> the motion then is to up hold the permit in item 6 a as is. and to up hold the permit in 6 b ending in 2814 with those revised plans and all of those conditions as stated. >> that is correct. >> okay. >> on that motion, to up hold both permits, one with all of those changes and revised plans, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado is ab accident. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. >> the vote is 4-0 and the first permit is upheld as is and the second permit is withheld with those revised plans and all of those changes. we are going to take a short break. yeah. >> good luck.

>> welcome back to the february 20, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals, we are calling appeal november v12-148 alic lam verses the zoning administrator, the project at 2529-2533 post street, protesting the granting on november 15, 2012 to kevin weil and christopher daughtery at rear yard and non-complying structure variances removal of the replacement of existing decks and exit stairs in the rear of the three story. and three family dwelling. attorney you have three minutes. >> before my time starts, i wonder if i might do a housekeeping thing and i have discussed it with the zoning

administrator and the architect, the variance decision letter has nine errors of direction in it. and i wanted to hand up a copy that is corrected and so that you could correct your copies. the directions are incorrect throughout the letter. >> you need to hand it to mr. pacheco. >> i am not really, what do you mean by nine errors of direction. >> for everything that says south, should be west. >> everything that says north should be south. >> and what does the zoning disaster have to say to that? >> thank you, the plans that we reviewed had the project north and that has been put on the overhead, the san born map that illustrated highlighting in yellow. it is actually on the post

street frontage and however the fro ject on the plans is showing north as being in this direction to the east and so everything is flipped around a bit. the appellant's property is located to the west not to the south as it is stated in the decision letter, so that is the housekeeping. >> and so did you see the edits to the letter? >> i did review them and they were forwarded to me. >> and i believe that they are accurate. >> and then we will take it. >> okay. >> okay. why don't you just keep it, then. >> and has it been shown to the variance holders? >> yes. okay. >> yes. my name is steve williams and i represent alic, lam and her family who oppose this variance. they own the building immediately to the west of the

subject site and they have owned the building and lived there nearly 30 years. because of the wrong directions in the variance decision letter, it was very confusing. and it made me believe that the department had not paid close attention to this variance and that they had the facts wrong in the surrounding neighborhood wrong. and i don't think that anyone from the department has ever been to the site. it is a rear yard variance. and i would ask you as you listen to the testimony, make them meet their burden, there is no showing of an extraordinary circumstance that applies only to this particular lot and because of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances they have been deprived of some property lot and only this property is being

deprived that in order to obtain this property that all of the surrounding properties have this variance has to be granted and that is the burden, what you see in the letter from the architect is a lot of personal references. variances can't be granted for personal reasons. you can see that this is a superior design, variances can't be granted for superior designs. let me start off by orienting you to the site as mr. sanchez did. could i have the overhead, please, victor? >> okay. so, this is the site here, and there are identical lots in a row. mrs. lam's lot is here and all of the longer lots goes out this way and this is a very long lot here behind. that is my exhibit f. here is our exhibit e.

and this shows the decks and the rear yard configuration and here is the subject site here and there is very small decks next door. and so, the misinformation that has been provided to you is across the board. unless we are allowed to expand in this area and build larger decks and configuration, we are going to be deprived of this property. and in fact this property already has by far the largest configuration of deck and rear stairs. and that is what you see, when you take a look at these photos. the applicants say that many immediate neighbors enjoy large decks and some that are larger and enter into the required rear yard tha. is simply untrue

there is none out there that have a deck of the size that they are proposing. the information in the applicant's brief is completely incorrect. they have used an out dated san born map and let me show you their exhibit b. >> their exhibit b here is the site. and they have named the decks in the decks a, b, c, d. but in fact, the property line is there. if you look at my exhibit f and g, you will see the correct configuration. this deck c here is on baker's street and they have the lot that goes all the way back here. they have all of this. and so, they have used the wrong sand born maps and given you the wrong information and they are completely inaccurate representations of what is

there. first they call out deck a. which is two doors down. and say that somehow it is larger. it certainly is not. and here is the subject site here. and here is what right next door what they have called deck b and here is two doors down, deck a. it is not larger, it does not stick out further. and then, you look at what they have termed deck b which is directly adjacent, that is a fire escape. that is not a deck. this deck here on what they called deck a, is 16 to 18 feet from the rear property line. this fire escape that they have named deck b, is 20 feet from the property line. their existing deck is currently 16 feet from the property line, but, the stairs

themselves come right up to the property line about five feet. so also there is and they show the deck c, which is on baker's street. there is actually a shot from the bakers street deck and here is the subject site and here is the adjacent site with the fire escape. this is on baker's street. this is a code complying deck that is smaller than what they want to build. it has a very deep lot that has a rear yard that is nearly 30 feet deep. and so it is really not fair to point to code complying decks and say, well, we ought to be able to build larger. but in fact those decks are actually smaller. and then they picked another deck that is nowhere near them, they call that adjacent and that is the deck e.

so, what is being replaced is the... you will see it on page 3 of the architect's brief he says, the deck as being that they are asking to be granted essentially the same size as the existing deck and that is just not so. there is the existing deck. it is about 6 feet by 12 feet. i estimated it at 72 square feet. what they want to put in, is 14 x 13, 182 square feet. and somehow he has included the stairs in there if you could just look at the decks, this is what we are talking about. this would be the grant of a special privilege. they would build a much larger structure and the structure would fill up the entire rear

yard and allow 0 clearance on the western property line next to my client property that enjoys a 3-foot set back from the deck and also reduce the open space all the way around. this is just the voluntary... the deck is not dilapidated there is a claim that it was blocked from usage. i took this photograph just a few days ago, it has not been blocked off at all. >> okay. >> we can hear from the permit holders now. >> i am going to have to

completely disagree with the appellant's representation. i am the architect and i drew the plans and i do apologize for the misrepresentation and the mislabeling of the directions. that is the only misrepresentation that are on these drawings. the measurements are direct. the representations are correct. and you can measure my drawings, i went out there and remeasured after the appellant and eyed it from i don't know they were not to scale whatever he was scaling off of. so, i would just like to make that as far as the housekeeping point as well. is that you know that is saying that. okay. so essentially just a little bit of a summary. you know, essentially, the appellant's building is a blank wall, it is 20 and a half feet long and we are adjacent to that property. the current deck is only 2 feet

away from that blank wall. all that we are proposing to do is to move it two feet closer. our deck is not radically different in size. those measurements that are in my brief are correct. what i am doing is i am talking the stairs into account for the massing and that is appropriate. so that structure is that square feet. and what we are proposing, is only 65 square feet more as far as massing goes. and in addition, the deck that we are putting on the top, is smaller and the ter aces down and everything tar aces down to the main mid block open space and anyone who is impacted by this would be those adjacent neighbors and the owners have letters of support for that. so let me just go through some of the illustrations on this and speak briefly to them.

let's see. i also brought the code book with all of the sections that it is code compliant for. egress and as far as the egress goes the proposed stairs are much more in accordance with the permit building code and much better stair. for egress. a couple of misrepresentations in the appellant's brief. we have direct access for the public way. that is very important as far as the egress goes. he states that we don't, we do. so just, so, so this is